Not to put too fine a point on it, but a coercive monopoly with guns is far worse than a mere merchant with a huge market share.
This is a stupid libertarian slogan. Merchants are the ones who gets laws passed to infringe on our rights without any guns. Merchants are the ones who screw up the economy and get away with it. Merchants are the ones with the money and political influence who control the government. If the gun-toting government were gone tomorrow, who do you think would arm themselves first and heaviest?
You know what? I prefer to be able to have a coercive monopoly that's within my control (which I'll happily pay a small percentage of) so that I don't have to face a coercive monopoly who can kill society without guns.
*Urey himself pointed out that they had shown it was far easier to get from a primordial soup to amino acids than anyone expected, but that the experiment also showed it was much, much harder to get from those amino acids to proteins than was thought at the same time. That's basically saying that Urey-Miller had not made any 'gaps' any smaller on average, so if your God of the Gaps argument includes that the gaps are shrinking so there is less and less that needs God as an explanation, the U-M experiment is a lousy argument for your position.
I would posit that getting from nothing to amino acids is a much more critical discovery. While going from amino acids to proteins may be harder, in terms of explanatory power, it is simply more important to show that amino acids can form from common compounds. Without that step proven, any abiogenesis theory is pointless.
It is very possible that it takes different conditions from the Urey-Miller experiment to create proteins from amino acids.
If you think a state government would not go further than a federal government would, you are deluding yourself.
A state gov't has checks on its power. If you live in a state that is going from bad to worse (like, oh, I don't know, New Jersey), you can vote for a better solution without your vote being diluted by the hundreds of millions of people outside of your state. And if things become intolerable, despite your best efforts? You can leave. Contrast this with the current top-heavy American empire that imposes its laws all over the globe, creating a world where the only real escape can be found at the north/south poles and in some third-world countries.
It's no secret that "states rights" used to be an excuse for slavery, and later, racial segregation.
If you're referring to the "cause" of the American civil war, slavery was on its way out already. Wage slavery is much more profitable and is still around today. As for your point in general, even though states rights' has been used as an excuse by some bigoted people, it's not like it has no actual merits. Read basically anything Thomas Jefferson has written to see what I'm on about.
Except state governments don't have checks on its power. States were free to continue racial segregation policies until the National Guard stepped in on Eisehower's orders. If taking the drastic step of moving to another state was really an option, why did the blacks feel they had to endanger themselves and go to a white university rather than moving north?
The impression I get from discussion of American politics is that the way things suppose to work in theory are made out as if they're fact. In theory people can move to another state. In theory there are no monopolies in the capitalist market. In theory people are free to choose their network provider. In theory, every state has unlimited space to accommodate migrations of political nature. In theory, people can just pack up and move state at any time.
You are mistaken in trying to apply free market economics to states rights. Unlike the mythical free market, people can't move around as easily as money can.
Yes and no. The NSA's activities in foreign signals intelligence is something every modern military does, and is legal under the constitution. However, the NSA's domestic spying (weren't they caught tapping directly into internet backbones in 2007?) is a violation of the 4th amendment and is more like something secret police would do. Ron Paul is one of the few people who holds this position.
Except Ron Paul wants to decrease federal power in return for state power. If you think a state government would not go further than a federal government would, you are deluding yourself. It's no secret that "states rights" used to be an excuse for slavery, and later, racial segregation.
If you doubt me, then read up on his political positions sometime.
From the above link (emphasis added): The central tenet of Paul's political philosophy is that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."
In case you didn't notice, you just used Ron Paul to excuse the need for the increasing power of the NSA. What is the NSA except to provide national defense and a criminal justice system?
Maybe you should take a look at governments around the world that are doing better than yours and realize "small government" and "big government" is almost orthogonally irrelevant to "good government".
You said troll, but the post you were replying to specifically targeted opinions that labelled CSIRO as a PATENT TROLL. It is reasonable for me thus assume you were also talking about patent trolls. Now that you admit you weren't talking about patent trolls, but your parent post was, YOU are the one with a reading comprehension, arsehole.
The ones where other companies had existing contracts and the CSIRO came in and said 'No we can do better. We are the CSIRO.' Years later on delivery date and no product.
So that makes them patent trolls does it? Nice to know that you think because you hate an organization, you'll put any label on them even if it doesn't actually mean what you intend.
If the CSIRO are incompetent, then the correct label is "incompetent". "Patent troll" does not mean incompetent. "Patent troll" does not just mean "a company that has patents and have sued".
Again, you miss the important point that the CSIRO works on projects, whether scientific studies or product development where the science and engineering aspect has not be developed to such an extent that it's a matter of plugging numbers in. Science is hard, idiot.
I wouldn't mind so much except they never deliver on more than 90% of projects.
That's why it's called science and research you retard. If you have a way of knowing which scientific study or development project based on new studies will be successful beforehand, please enlighten us, because we would like to bypass all that theorizing stuff and just plug numbers in formulae.
I can't stand the idea of government taking someones money under threat of force
I can't stand the idea that a person believes they can reap all the rewards of a functioning society without giving something back to maintain it at a reasonable standard. In effect, these people are using force to leech of everyone else's contribution to society.
Yes, but unless that system is made as efficient as possible, it can take a very long time to correct itself. Eugenics is the classic example. Sure, it was eventually shown to be so much junk science, but not before it contributed to millions being killed/lobotomized/institutionalized. Even though there were skeptics of it almost from the beginning, the biology and medical fields did a piss-poor job at self-correcting, and people suffered for decades after this should have been laughed away as humbug.
Simply saying "Well, it will eventually sort itself out" is not an excuse to avoid reform.
I keep seeing this criticism and it always misses out on the important point - it is not the fault of the scientific method if politicians take pseudo-science and run with it despite scientific opposition. How is it a problem with the self-correcting process in science when non-scientists take any quack theory and run with it as a political platform?
So you've never actually been or met a teenager then? How odd.
Not one who disapproves of the way people dress... I was never a person who judged a person by their looks - which is what disapproving is. But teenagers, regardless of their views, are exempt due to them being stupid. It takes religiosity to keep looks based prejudice alive into adulthood.
I see the fact that some people think exposure to the implication of homosexual relationships is promoting, and that promoting can affect a person's "decision" to be gay shows their own uncomfortable feelings that people sure of their sexuality don't have.
No amount of promotion of homosexuality can change a person to become homosexual. Stop pushing your irrational fears on us - not even on heterosexuals.
No, there is no fault with not shielding kids from the facts of life. Kids are more mature than they're given credit for. They should be exposed to real life. The parent's job is to explain that, even though something happens in real life, there are things and their consequences that are preferable over others. Parents who shield their kids are doing a similar disservice to them as parents who let kids do anything they want without learning of the consequences. The problem with American parenting is that they want to see their kids smile at any cost, even if the smile is fake and they hide deep personal issues.
Sorry, but disapproving of the way people look and dress is a religious thing. Non-religious people may dislike or even hate how another person looks or dresses, but that is not the same as disapproving.
The administrator asked to view the Facebook account - no request was made for her password. Whether or not this is OK remains up for debate, but having the facts is always preferable...
How retarded are you?
Whether someone asks your for a PIN number or access to your bank account, the important thing is that they're after your money. They're the same. Hence...
See, I'm actually more forgiving of misplaced apostrophes, because I understand it's not always an "intentional" mistake but a reflexive one. The mind doesn't think "oh, a possessive!", it thinks "oh, an s at the end!".
Applying your logic to the justice system, it means we should never have the right the appeal because it makes the judicial process look like it's run by mistake-making, glory-seeking, chip-shouldering humans. Admitting that would be false humility because it would mean society will plunge into chaos overnight.
I'm mostly in favour of evolutionary shifts in language. However, it doesn't mean we shouldn'y try to curb the more stupid mistakes. Sorry, but "drug" as the past tense of drag is just stupid. Like "irregardless". Or "bet" instead of "beaten".
I fully reserve the right to tell people that they're wrong when they are, no matter how popular their wrongness is. You have the right to disagree. But your right to disagree does not negate my right to correct.
This is ridiculous.
Science is already under attack, most recently with the whole Climategate non-scandal.
Think strategically. How would the public REALLY react if the scientists sat on results and it was revealed by a leak that they may have had an unexpected result? To the public, especially the American public, that would be a strong example that scientists withhold information, and worse, covering up results that don't agree with Established Doctrine. Sorry to have to break this to you, but this is how the anti-intellectual anti-elitist public thinks already.
This is much bigger than someone's fucking reputation (which most of us agree are intact, even for the guy who resigned) and career. Your shortsightedness is stupid. Like it or not, science needs to be seen to handle its own messes.
It is the religiously conservative parents that coddle children you retard. Liberal parents don't tend to beat their kids for doing minor bad things (ie, opposite of coddling), but I suppose you'll ascribe anything to liberals because, to you, it's now just a word that represents everything bad whether they actually represent real world liberals or not.
What is the obsession with Slashdotters declaring things as "not news"? Is it sour grapes that other people are at least submitting articles and you aren't so you must shit over everyone else's efforts, as though you'd be perfect if only people acknowledged you as the best person ever in the history of the whole wide world?
Slashdot Mirror
Not to put too fine a point on it, but a coercive monopoly with guns is far worse than a mere merchant with a huge market share.
This is a stupid libertarian slogan. Merchants are the ones who gets laws passed to infringe on our rights without any guns. Merchants are the ones who screw up the economy and get away with it. Merchants are the ones with the money and political influence who control the government. If the gun-toting government were gone tomorrow, who do you think would arm themselves first and heaviest?
You know what? I prefer to be able to have a coercive monopoly that's within my control (which I'll happily pay a small percentage of) so that I don't have to face a coercive monopoly who can kill society without guns.
Libertarians are idiots.
*Urey himself pointed out that they had shown it was far easier to get from a primordial soup to amino acids than anyone expected, but that the experiment also showed it was much, much harder to get from those amino acids to proteins than was thought at the same time. That's basically saying that Urey-Miller had not made any 'gaps' any smaller on average, so if your God of the Gaps argument includes that the gaps are shrinking so there is less and less that needs God as an explanation, the U-M experiment is a lousy argument for your position.
I would posit that getting from nothing to amino acids is a much more critical discovery. While going from amino acids to proteins may be harder, in terms of explanatory power, it is simply more important to show that amino acids can form from common compounds. Without that step proven, any abiogenesis theory is pointless.
It is very possible that it takes different conditions from the Urey-Miller experiment to create proteins from amino acids.
If we take it is viable, we should consider the panspermia theories more seriously.
Only as a possible answer to the origin of Earth's life. It still doesn't answer the origin of life itself, wherever it may have started.
If you think a state government would not go further than a federal government would, you are deluding yourself.
A state gov't has checks on its power. If you live in a state that is going from bad to worse (like, oh, I don't know, New Jersey), you can vote for a better solution without your vote being diluted by the hundreds of millions of people outside of your state. And if things become intolerable, despite your best efforts? You can leave. Contrast this with the current top-heavy American empire that imposes its laws all over the globe, creating a world where the only real escape can be found at the north/south poles and in some third-world countries.
It's no secret that "states rights" used to be an excuse for slavery, and later, racial segregation.
If you're referring to the "cause" of the American civil war, slavery was on its way out already. Wage slavery is much more profitable and is still around today. As for your point in general, even though states rights' has been used as an excuse by some bigoted people, it's not like it has no actual merits. Read basically anything Thomas Jefferson has written to see what I'm on about.
Except state governments don't have checks on its power. States were free to continue racial segregation policies until the National Guard stepped in on Eisehower's orders. If taking the drastic step of moving to another state was really an option, why did the blacks feel they had to endanger themselves and go to a white university rather than moving north?
The impression I get from discussion of American politics is that the way things suppose to work in theory are made out as if they're fact. In theory people can move to another state. In theory there are no monopolies in the capitalist market. In theory people are free to choose their network provider. In theory, every state has unlimited space to accommodate migrations of political nature. In theory, people can just pack up and move state at any time.
You are mistaken in trying to apply free market economics to states rights. Unlike the mythical free market, people can't move around as easily as money can.
Yes and no. The NSA's activities in foreign signals intelligence is something every modern military does, and is legal under the constitution. However, the NSA's domestic spying (weren't they caught tapping directly into internet backbones in 2007?) is a violation of the 4th amendment and is more like something secret police would do. Ron Paul is one of the few people who holds this position.
Except Ron Paul wants to decrease federal power in return for state power. If you think a state government would not go further than a federal government would, you are deluding yourself. It's no secret that "states rights" used to be an excuse for slavery, and later, racial segregation.
If you doubt me, then read up on his political positions sometime. From the above link (emphasis added): The central tenet of Paul's political philosophy is that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."
In case you didn't notice, you just used Ron Paul to excuse the need for the increasing power of the NSA. What is the NSA except to provide national defense and a criminal justice system? Maybe you should take a look at governments around the world that are doing better than yours and realize "small government" and "big government" is almost orthogonally irrelevant to "good government".
You said troll, but the post you were replying to specifically targeted opinions that labelled CSIRO as a PATENT TROLL. It is reasonable for me thus assume you were also talking about patent trolls. Now that you admit you weren't talking about patent trolls, but your parent post was, YOU are the one with a reading comprehension, arsehole.
The ones where other companies had existing contracts and the CSIRO came in and said 'No we can do better. We are the CSIRO.' Years later on delivery date and no product.
So that makes them patent trolls does it? Nice to know that you think because you hate an organization, you'll put any label on them even if it doesn't actually mean what you intend.
If the CSIRO are incompetent, then the correct label is "incompetent". "Patent troll" does not mean incompetent. "Patent troll" does not just mean "a company that has patents and have sued".
Again, you miss the important point that the CSIRO works on projects, whether scientific studies or product development where the science and engineering aspect has not be developed to such an extent that it's a matter of plugging numbers in. Science is hard, idiot.
I wouldn't mind so much except they never deliver on more than 90% of projects.
That's why it's called science and research you retard. If you have a way of knowing which scientific study or development project based on new studies will be successful beforehand, please enlighten us, because we would like to bypass all that theorizing stuff and just plug numbers in formulae.
I can't stand the idea of government taking someones money under threat of force
I can't stand the idea that a person believes they can reap all the rewards of a functioning society without giving something back to maintain it at a reasonable standard. In effect, these people are using force to leech of everyone else's contribution to society.
Yes, but unless that system is made as efficient as possible, it can take a very long time to correct itself. Eugenics is the classic example. Sure, it was eventually shown to be so much junk science, but not before it contributed to millions being killed/lobotomized/institutionalized. Even though there were skeptics of it almost from the beginning, the biology and medical fields did a piss-poor job at self-correcting, and people suffered for decades after this should have been laughed away as humbug.
Simply saying "Well, it will eventually sort itself out" is not an excuse to avoid reform.
I keep seeing this criticism and it always misses out on the important point - it is not the fault of the scientific method if politicians take pseudo-science and run with it despite scientific opposition. How is it a problem with the self-correcting process in science when non-scientists take any quack theory and run with it as a political platform?
So you've never actually been or met a teenager then? How odd.
Not one who disapproves of the way people dress... I was never a person who judged a person by their looks - which is what disapproving is. But teenagers, regardless of their views, are exempt due to them being stupid. It takes religiosity to keep looks based prejudice alive into adulthood.
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
I see the fact that some people think exposure to the implication of homosexual relationships is promoting, and that promoting can affect a person's "decision" to be gay shows their own uncomfortable feelings that people sure of their sexuality don't have. No amount of promotion of homosexuality can change a person to become homosexual. Stop pushing your irrational fears on us - not even on heterosexuals.
No, there is no fault with not shielding kids from the facts of life. Kids are more mature than they're given credit for. They should be exposed to real life. The parent's job is to explain that, even though something happens in real life, there are things and their consequences that are preferable over others. Parents who shield their kids are doing a similar disservice to them as parents who let kids do anything they want without learning of the consequences. The problem with American parenting is that they want to see their kids smile at any cost, even if the smile is fake and they hide deep personal issues.
Sorry, but disapproving of the way people look and dress is a religious thing. Non-religious people may dislike or even hate how another person looks or dresses, but that is not the same as disapproving.
Florida's statue is so broad
If only they opted for a thinner statue, the state wouldn't be in such a financial mess.
If they have evidence she had done those things, why do they need access to her account?
TFS gets it wrong and TFA never clarifies.
The administrator asked to view the Facebook account - no request was made for her password. Whether or not this is OK remains up for debate, but having the facts is always preferable...
How retarded are you? Whether someone asks your for a PIN number or access to your bank account, the important thing is that they're after your money. They're the same. Hence...
See, I'm actually more forgiving of misplaced apostrophes, because I understand it's not always an "intentional" mistake but a reflexive one. The mind doesn't think "oh, a possessive!", it thinks "oh, an s at the end!".
Applying your logic to the justice system, it means we should never have the right the appeal because it makes the judicial process look like it's run by mistake-making, glory-seeking, chip-shouldering humans. Admitting that would be false humility because it would mean society will plunge into chaos overnight.
I'm mostly in favour of evolutionary shifts in language. However, it doesn't mean we shouldn'y try to curb the more stupid mistakes. Sorry, but "drug" as the past tense of drag is just stupid. Like "irregardless". Or "bet" instead of "beaten". I fully reserve the right to tell people that they're wrong when they are, no matter how popular their wrongness is. You have the right to disagree. But your right to disagree does not negate my right to correct.
This is ridiculous. Science is already under attack, most recently with the whole Climategate non-scandal. Think strategically. How would the public REALLY react if the scientists sat on results and it was revealed by a leak that they may have had an unexpected result? To the public, especially the American public, that would be a strong example that scientists withhold information, and worse, covering up results that don't agree with Established Doctrine. Sorry to have to break this to you, but this is how the anti-intellectual anti-elitist public thinks already. This is much bigger than someone's fucking reputation (which most of us agree are intact, even for the guy who resigned) and career. Your shortsightedness is stupid. Like it or not, science needs to be seen to handle its own messes.
Can people stop fucking using the word "drug" as the past tense of "drag"? It's "dragged".
It is the religiously conservative parents that coddle children you retard. Liberal parents don't tend to beat their kids for doing minor bad things (ie, opposite of coddling), but I suppose you'll ascribe anything to liberals because, to you, it's now just a word that represents everything bad whether they actually represent real world liberals or not.
What is the obsession with Slashdotters declaring things as "not news"? Is it sour grapes that other people are at least submitting articles and you aren't so you must shit over everyone else's efforts, as though you'd be perfect if only people acknowledged you as the best person ever in the history of the whole wide world?